Abstract
Agriculture is the single largest sector and dominating driving
force for growth and development of Pakistan’s economy. Its share in
GDP is 24% and employs 48.4% of the total work force of the country.
It also provides raw materials for the agro-based industries and
adds sustainability to Pakistan’s export earnings. At present the
average yields of various crops are low as compared to their
potential yields and also to those of the advanced countries. The
research advancements made in the field of agriculture indicate that
the available technologies have much potential, which is not being
properly exploited by the farmers. The research studies indicate
that lack of proper dissemination of agricultural technologies among
the farmers is still of one of the major causes for their
non-adoption by the farmers. For the effective dissemination of
agricultural technologies among the farmers, many extension
approaches have been implemented from time to time. At present three
main approaches are working in the country: public sector extension
approach (PSEA), participatory extension approach (PEA) and
commodity specialized extension approach (CSEA) for the guidance and
education of the farmers, but still the extension’s role does not
appear to be much effective. However, each approach has some
strengths, which may be used by other approaches for the improvement
of extension work. Keeping in view this situation, the present study
was planned to analyze these three approaches in the context of
technology dissemination and its utilization by the farmers.

For
this purpose the data were collected from 360 respondents taken from
the farmers of the three selected approaches by selecting an equal
sample of 120 respondents each, from 10 randomly selected villages
of tehsil Chak Jhumra of Faisalabad district in which the three
approaches are simultaneously in operation. A comparison of the
three selected approaches was made against the selected parameters
like sustainability, farmers’ participation, women participation,
linkages development, knowledge gain, technology utilization,
diversification, competence of extension field staff (EFS),
effectiveness of extension messages, effective use of extension
methods, responsiveness to various categories of rural people,
organization of target groups, responsiveness to national policies
and goals and overall perception of the farmers regarding these
approaches. The collected data were analysed by using frequency
distributions, weighted scores, analysis of variance, standard
variation and LSD values. The Chi-square was also used for computing
relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the
respondents and some dependent variables like farmers’
participation, knowledge gain and technology utilization.

The
results indicated that PSEA was a better approach than PEA and CSEA
with regard to the introduction of sustainable agricultural
practices among the farmers. PEA had provided more opportunities to
the farmers for their participation in extension programme
development than the PSEA and CSEA. PSEA and CSEA had absolutely
provided no opportunity for women participation at any stage of
extension programme development whereas the women were given
opportunities for their participation in PEA. PSEA had developed
more linkages with various categories of farmers and agricultural
allied agencies than those of PEA and CSEA. PEA was the approach
that had covered all the diversified areas whereas rest of the two
approaches were not putting sufficient efforts in providing
coverage. PEA was a better approach than the other two approaches (PSEA
and CSEA). PSEA was ranked at the top with regard to the knowledge
gain regarding crop production and protection practices by the
farmers, whereas PEA and CSEA were rated as 2nd and 3rd
respectively. As regards the technology utilization by the farmers
PSEA, PEA and CSEA were rated 1st, 2nd and 3rd respectively. PSEA
got the highest score among the selected approaches with regard to
competence of extension field staff. The extension messages were
well prepared in PSEA than those of PEA and CSEA. PEA was responsive
to more categories of rural people as compared to the other two
approaches (PSEA and CSEA). The EFS of PSEA used the extension
methods more effectively than those of PEA and CSEA. The EFS of PEA
was more serious in organizing the target groups among the rural
communities than the other two approaches (PSEA and CSEA). According
to the overall perceptions of the farmers, the PEA was a better
approach followed by the PSEA and CSEA